Audacity Forum

steve wrote:

Gale Andrews wrote:There are some elements of that real life modification that digital doesn't capture properly IMHO

Which "elements" are you referring to?
What do you mean by "doesn't capture properly"?

I think you know what I mean by now. Fundamentally, "poor" or "artificial-sounding" representation of "sound stage" (where the instruments are placed left-right and back-front in a believable ambience, and how the instruments blend into each other).


Gale

Gale Andrews wrote:Fundamentally, "poor" or "artificial-sounding" representation of "sound stage" (where the instruments are placed left-right and back-front in a believable ambience, and how the instruments blend into each other).

Digital vs Analog is irrelevant to both of those concerns, though there may be a tendency for engineers/producers that prefer analog equipment to have different ideas about spacial separation than those that prefer digital equipment.

Professional level equipment is designed to be "accurate". That is, to not colour or distort the sound, but to faithfully reproduce the signal that is put into it. Modern professional recoding equipment, whether digital or analog, does this extremely well. All else being equal, I doubt that anyone can hear a difference between music recorded on a Neve 88RS and music recorded on a Neve 88D. On the other hand, I can clearly hear the difference between an over-driven solid state pre-amp and an over-driven tube pre-amp because they have distinctly different timbre (the way that they colour the sound is very different).

Gale Andrews wrote:Fundamentally, "poor" or "artificial-sounding" representation of "sound stage" (where the instruments are placed left-right and back-front in a believable ambience, and how the instruments blend into each other).

Ooh I do like riding this hobby-horse around the paddock ...

My touchstone for this is my LP and CD of Sonny Rollin's album "The Bridge" - a fabulous performance combined with fabulous engineering - and the re-engineering for CD is truly excellent too. As you know I listen on fairly high-end (if ancient) QUAD kit with ESL-57s - I find that both media versions provide and excellent "sound stage" - if anything the CD has a better "grip" on the "sound stage" - and it's certainly cleaner after many years of playing the LP. I've also played this CD on a friend's *extremely* high-end kit and the CD sounds stunning there too.

The ability to create the "sound stage" of course originates in the recording and engineering - but once the album is in the consumer's hands the ability to create a good "sound" stage is largely governed by the quality of the kit (DAC-amp-speakers / cart-arm-amp-speakers). I was amazed, for example, when I swapped out my original Philips 104AB for my Rega Planet CD deck at how much better the Rega was (and still is) at creating the "sound stage"

Another irony, BTW for the pro-vinyl bods, is that the modern generation of new vinyl albums which are becoming so popular are (mostly) produced and engineered in digital technology before pressing in analog vinyl.

Peter.

waxcylinder wrote:

Gale Andrews wrote:Fundamentally, "poor" or "artificial-sounding" representation of "sound stage" (where the instruments are placed left-right and back-front in a believable ambience, and how the instruments blend into each other).

My touchstone for this is my LP and CD of Sonny Rollin's album "The Bridge" - a fabulous performance combined with fabulous engineering - and the re-engineering for CD is truly excellent too. As you know I listen on fairly high-end (if ancient) QUAD kit with ESL-57s - I find that both media versions provide and excellent "sound stage" - if anything the CD has a better "grip" on the "sound stage" - and it's certainly cleaner after many years of playing the LP. I've also played this CD on a friend's *extremely* high-end kit and the CD sounds stunning there too.

Is the LP an original issue (from 1962, according to Wikipedia)? If not, "soundstage" often becomes much thinner and generalised on LP reissues - one disadvantage of the LP medium for reasons that are not always clear.

The most insane LP buffs can hear differences between different stamper numbers on the same release pressed the same year.

waxcylinder wrote:Another irony, BTW for the pro-vinyl bods, is that the modern generation of new vinyl albums which are becoming so popular are (mostly) produced and engineered in digital technology before pressing in analog vinyl.

I agree with you there. For the same reason as I give above, I sometimes think even "all analogue" 180 gram vinyl reissues of 1950's/60's recordings are inferior to CD (and even more inferior to the original vinyl, considering only "sound stage").


Gale

Gale Andrews wrote:Is the LP an original issue (from 1962, according to Wikipedia)? If not, "soundstage" often becomes much thinner and generalised on LP reissues - one disadvantage of the LP medium for reasons that are not always clear.

Was rather than is, yes it was the original release - but I lost it a few years ago (through divorce, but hey it was hers in the first place) so I can no longer make the comparison - plus my record deck is no longer plumbed in, or plumbable in, to my hi-fi rig.

Gale Andrews wrote:The most insane LP buffs can hear differences between different stamper numbers on the same release pressed the same year.

Yes and one can hear differences if the pressing has not been made properly - in extreme cases with a "cold pressing". It was the fact that I was getting too many cold pressings, sometimes taking an album back to the shop for a fresh copy two or three times, that provided one of the reasons for me to transition to CDs.

Peter